Ooh... I wonder if he'll pick Rand Paul as his running mate. That right there might let me get my 2012 presidential voting decision over with.

I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.

During the last election, I said that it was the Democrats to lose, and the only way they could lose it was to nominate Hillary. Well, it seems like I called that one correctly.

This election is not nearly as clear cut, but I do give it to the Republicans to lose. The problem is that I don't see a viable candidate yet in the bunch. The best I see are people like Romney, who make it a race instead of a clear cut thing. I do see some, like Trump or Palin, as being a way to give it to the Democrats. I read one analysis recently that says the Republicans might want to concentrate on the congress (both houses) as some of the candidates will look very good in 2016 after they gather more exposure on the national scale. They mentioned Ryan as one example of a potential future leader who they could start grooming now for next cycle.

That seems like a very wise strategy to me. If they can get control of both houses, it almost (not quite but almost) makes the POTUS irrelevant from a legal aspect. They do have to be prepared to pass laws to stop executive orders if they do this though.

srothstein wrote:During the last election, I said that it was the Democrats to lose, and the only way they could lose it was to nominate Hillary. Well, it seems like I called that one correctly.

This election is not nearly as clear cut, but I do give it to the Republicans to lose. The problem is that I don't see a viable candidate yet in the bunch. The best I see are people like Romney, who make it a race instead of a clear cut thing. I do see some, like Trump or Palin, as being a way to give it to the Democrats. I read one analysis recently that says the Republicans might want to concentrate on the congress (both houses) as some of the candidates will look very good in 2016 after they gather more exposure on the national scale. They mentioned Ryan as one example of a potential future leader who they could start grooming now for next cycle.

That seems like a very wise strategy to me. If they can get control of both houses, it almost (not quite but almost) makes the POTUS irrelevant from a legal aspect. They do have to be prepared to pass laws to stop executive orders if they do this though.

, that is what I was trying to say.

At the moment, IMO, the GOP doesn't stand a chance of unseating the current POTUS...and that may not be a bad thing. There's more than one way to skin a squirrel.

Problem with another term is that the current POTUS doesn't care about constraints, legislative or otherwise, anymore. His policies are being conducted through agencies and departments, including TSA, EPA, Treasury, Justice and the FED (no longer subservient to the Treasury, nor Congress, as it currently stands). He has already started giving assignments to each of these (or maybe simply allowing them to do what they want -- quite possible, given what I think of his competence), and another term would allow him to finish out his plans. For example, he clearly just wants to push payment of the national debt out into the next President's administration.

OldSchool wrote:Problem with another term is that the current POTUS doesn't care about constraints, legislative or otherwise, anymore. His policies are being conducted through agencies and departments, including TSA, EPA, Treasury, Justice and the FED (no longer subservient to the Treasury, nor Congress, as it currently stands). He has already started giving assignments to each of these (or maybe simply allowing them to do what they want -- quite possible, given what I think of his competence), and another term would allow him to finish out his plans. For example, he clearly just wants to push payment of the national debt out into the next President's administration.

The past President's administration is what gets the future President elected. Think about it....

OldSchool wrote:Problem with another term is that the current POTUS doesn't care about constraints, legislative or otherwise, anymore. His policies are being conducted through agencies and departments, including TSA, EPA, Treasury, Justice and the FED (no longer subservient to the Treasury, nor Congress, as it currently stands). He has already started giving assignments to each of these (or maybe simply allowing them to do what they want -- quite possible, given what I think of his competence), and another term would allow him to finish out his plans. For example, he clearly just wants to push payment of the national debt out into the next President's administration.

The past President's administration is what gets the future President elected. Think about it....

Except what is this President's forte (it sure has nothing to do with vision or management skills or leadership skills)? Think about it....

OldSchool wrote:Problem with another term is that the current POTUS doesn't care about constraints, legislative or otherwise, anymore. His policies are being conducted through agencies and departments, including TSA, EPA, Treasury, Justice and the FED (no longer subservient to the Treasury, nor Congress, as it currently stands). He has already started giving assignments to each of these (or maybe simply allowing them to do what they want -- quite possible, given what I think of his competence), and another term would allow him to finish out his plans. For example, he clearly just wants to push payment of the national debt out into the next President's administration.

The past President's administration is what gets the future President elected. Think about it....

Except what is this President's forte (it sure has nothing to do with vision or management skills or leadership skills)? Think about it....

You're right, of course, it even goes back to Washington-to-Adams-to-Jefferson (it was a shame how people managed to estrange Adams and Jefferson). Wow, I simply cannot believe I'm wishing for a return to the days of real politics....

srothstein wrote:This election is not nearly as clear cut, but I do give it to the Republicans to lose. The problem is that I don't see a viable candidate yet in the bunch. The best I see are people like Romney,

We didn't have a barf icon, so I'll go with these.

He(Romney) told other reporters that the biggest difference between his health care plan and Hillary Clinton’s was "mine got passed and hers didn’t."

Perhaps the most publicized aspect of the Massachusetts reform is its mandate that every resident have health insurance, whether provided by an employer or the government or purchased individually. "I like mandates," Romney said during a debate in New Hampshire. "The mandate works." But did it?

That right there is enough to turn me off of him.

I'm afraid we're doomed for another 4 years of the hopy changy unicorn farting rainbows, so our best hope is to decisively take both houses of Congress. Most of those who actually could mobilize the tea party and conservative base have already bowed out and say they won't run.

We're probably doomed to a repeat of 08, where the national republican party basically said "well, I guess we owe ya one, John....have fun!"